Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 91

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 98 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body. Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment. Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP. OBJECTIVES. Present current trends in bilingual assessment

Download Presentation

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

CDL ConsortiumOpportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body

Bilingual Speech-

Language Assessment

Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP

Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP


Objectives

OBJECTIVES

  • Present current trends in bilingual assessment

  • Address language disorder vs. language difference

  • Present methods for establishing language dominance

  • Discuss assessment with interpreters/ELL teachers


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • MONOLINGUAL SLPs

  • More clearly define the role of a monolingual SLP in a bilingual assessment

  • -Monolingual SLP role working with a bilingual SLP

  • -Monolingual role working with an interpreter/ ELL teacher


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • BILINGUAL SLPs

  • Share your own resources and procedures

  • Learn more about other approaches


Basic outline

BASIC OUTLINE

  • Present two recent articles published in the area of bilingual assessment

  • Go over basic components of bilingual assessment process

  • Present case study #1

  • Present case study #2 (if time permits)

  • Share bilingual resources

  • Question and answer time with panel of bilingual SLPs


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 2005

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

CONCEPTUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced (Pearson et al. 1993)

MONOLINGUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response based on the language in which it is produced


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20051

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Historical approach to bilingual assessment was

  • a) Test the student in his/her dominant language

  • b) Monolingual SLP tests in English, bilingual SLP tests in Spanish


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20052

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Limitations to historical approach

  • Some but not all vocabulary overlaps across languages

  • Even typically developing bilinguals may present as delayed in both languages in earlier stages

    (under age 5)


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20053

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Limitations to historical approach

  • Total knowledge of bilinguals in a single language is not comparable to monolinguals

  • Code switching is used to add knowledge

  • Vocabulary is influenced by frequency of exposure to specific words and context


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20054

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Two studies on the semantic skills of typically developing (TD) bilingual children

  • STUDY 1- To what extent do bilingual children produce overlapping responses?

  • STUDY 2- Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20055

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

STUDY 1

-55 TD bilingual children (4;0-7;11)

11 primarily English (PE)- 80% or more

7 bilingual English (BE)

13 bilingual Spanish (BS)- 50-80%

24 primarily Spanish (PS)


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20056

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (different items in S + E), expressive and receptive

  • Same concepts were targeted (object shapes, colors, sizes, functions) but with different questions

    ex: describe a school bus/dime comoes un camion/troca


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20057

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Item content taken from concepts familiar to preschool children as indicated by teacher-child interaction data collected in bilingual preschool

  • Literature review on language development and cultural relevance in each language


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20058

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Three sets of scores generated

  • Monolingual Score: English question + Correct English response= 1 point

  • Total Response Score: English question + correct English response + correct Spanish response= 2 points

  • Conceptual Score: English question + correct Spanish or English response= 1 point


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 20059

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Study 1 Results

  • Only significant differences between total and conceptual scores for the BE children on Spanish subtest

  • Lower variability in conceptual score than total score

  • PS, BS, BE groups: Monolingual scores moderately lower than total/conceptual scores

    -total/conceptual scores were not significantly different than monolingual scores


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200510

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Study 1 Results

  • Children produce more vocabulary in dominant language

  • Even PE and PS students knew vocabulary in non-dominant language

  • TD children from bilingual backgrounds likely to produce unique vocabulary (based on environmental demands in each language)


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200511

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

STUDY 2

  • Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?

  • Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (Phase 2 of Study 1 items)

  • 40 TD bilingual children (5;0-6;1)

    • age/lang background closely matched Study 1 participants


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200512

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Expressive items from semantic subtest

    -characteristic properties, functions, analogies, linguistic concepts, similarities and differences, comprehension of passages

    Example: Functions

    -What do you do with scissors?

    -Spanish (What do you do with a bat?)


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200513

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Study 2

  • For Spanish-speaking bilinguals, conceptual score more likely to be in average range than monolingual

  • For testing in English, monolingual and conceptual scores were similar

  • BS and BE group provided more responses in English during Spanish subtest than Spanish items during English subtest


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200514

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Study 2 Results: Table 4. Percentage of participants who were accurately classified as typically developing when primarily Spanish- or primarily English-speaking children’s average monolingual score was used to set the cutoff.


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200515

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Bilinguals will benefit from conceptual scoring

  • Results from translated tests (CELF 4 Spanish) must be carefully considered (children may consider these requests for new info, may not display overlapping knowledge)

  • All students (even PE + PS) likely to have some unique skills in their non-dominant language


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200516

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

  • Allowing (and encouraging if necessary) children to code switch facilitates use of full range of vocabulary

    * to do this effectively, children must be aware that administrator is bilingual

  • To what extent are cutoff points (e.g., -1.5 SD, -2SD) useful tools for determination of eligibility with bilingual children?

  • Further studies needed to establish normative data on conceptual scoring


Conceptual vs monolingual scoring bedore et al 200517

CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005)

Limitations to Study

  • Relatively small sample size

  • Only assessed vocabulary development

  • Restricted to typically developing children

  • Presents a testing approach for which valid/reliable tools are rare/may not exist


Besa bilingual english spanish assessment

BESA- Bilingual English Spanish Assessment

  • Three subtests (in both Spanish and English) to address morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology

  • The test norms were derived using data from over 600 bilingual children living in the US including 16 dialects

  • Normed for children (ages 4 years, 0 months through 6 years, 11 months) who have varying levels of Spanish-English bilingualism

  • http://www.ar-clinicalpubl.com/


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 2013

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

ARTICLE INFORMATION

  • Lexical Diversity and Omission Errors as Predictors of Language Ability in the Narratives of Sequential Spanish–English Bilinguals: A Cross-Language Comparison

  • Peggy F. Jacobsona and Patrick R. Waldena

  • American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 22 • 554–565 • August 2013


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20131

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF STUDY

  • This study explored the utility of two commonly employed (Language Sample Analysis)LSA measures in English and Spanish during a standard narrative retell task.


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20132

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsonaand Waldena 2013)

  • Second LSA measure: the total number of word and morpheme omission errors

  • First LSA measure: lexical diversity, determined by calculating the number of different words (NDW) and the D statistic.


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20133

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

ABILITY VS. PROFICIENCY

  • Ability refers to a child’s individual capability for learning language, whereas proficiency indicates a child’s relative attainment of each language.

  • Proficiency improves over time, but ability shapes the rate and extent of growth in proficiency.

  • Part of bilingual assessment: separating ability from proficiency.


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20134

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

BILINGUAL LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT

  • Consistent with linguistic and processing deficits, children with BLI perform lower on behavioral language measures relative to other bilingual children having similar amounts of exposure to the language in question.

  • Moreover, children with BLI exhibit slower rates of vocabulary acquisition and higher rates of grammatical errors and are likely to experience persistent academically related language difficulties (Peña & Bedore, 2009).


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20135

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

INFORMATION ABOUT LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

  • Generally, bilinguals do not receive equal amounts of input in each language.

  • Semantic development is driven more by input. Alternatively, morphosyntactic development is driven by a combination of input (exposure) and output (language use).

  • Language experience corresponds, in part, to the type of bilingualism (Simultaneous vs. Sequential)


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20136

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY

  • 48 children, 26 Typically Developing (TD) and 22 with BLI

  • The overwhelming majority (46/48, 96%) were early sequential bilinguals.

  • Estimates of relative language proficiency were obtained using the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS) in English and Spanish.


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20137

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

HOW DATA WAS COLLECTED

  • Language samples were collected in Spanish and English

  • Lexical diversity was calculated two ways: NDW (Number of Different Words) and the use of the D statistic

  • Grammatical errors counted were omissions of single words and bound morphemes across languages.


Language proficiency and ability jacobsona and waldena 20138

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)

RESULTS

  • The omission of words and bound morphemes was found to be the best predictor of impairment across languages and age levels.

  • Lexical diversity was not the best predictor of language ability.

  • Most common omission errors: English (regular past tense –ed) Spanish (clitic pronouns, articles, and third person plural verb inflection –n (e.g., está for están)


Ability and proficiency jacobsona and waldena 2013

ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY(Jacobsona and Waldena, 2013

QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STUDY

  • Do lexical diversity measures and omission errors predict BLI?

  • Is there an advantage for using the newer D statistic over the standard NDW measure to estimate lexical diversity?

  • How are lexical diversity and the number of omission errors tied to oral language proficiency?


Ability and proficiency jacobsona and waldera 2013

ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY(Jacobsona and Waldera, 2013)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

  • Language Sample Analysis is a valuable tool in bilingual assessment.

  • Measures for this study can be readily applied to other languages.


Assessment process

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Pre-screen

-Comment/concern from school provider/ administrator

-Comment/concern from parent

-Classroom observation

-Other??


Assessment process1

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

B) Screening

I. Classroom observation

II. Screening tool- formal or informal

III. Language sample

IV. Informal conversation with teacher


Assessment process2

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

C) Referral

I. Demographic Info

II. Parent Interview

-languages at home, literacy level of parents, home activities, developmental history, health information

III. Language Proficiency

-ELL teacher report, ACCESS/CELA scores,supports provided


Assessment process3

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

C) Referral (ct’d.)

IV. Education history

-history in/out of district, interventions, language of instruction, ESL supports

V. Educational team members

-names, titles, and contact info


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

C) Referral

Adams 12 Referral Form

Aurora Referral Form


Assessment process4

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

D) Evaluation

*Establishment of dominant language

-Parent report

-School provider report

-Informal pre-assessment

-other options: language proficiency screening (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix), recess/lunch observation


Assessment process5

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation

  • *Establishment of dominant language

  • -ASK THE STUDENT!

  • -Woodcock Munoz Language Survey

  • -Different types of language dominance: receptive vs expressive


Assessment process6

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation

  • I. “Standardized” Assessment

  • II. Language Sample

  • -language sample

  • sentence length, grammar skills, vocabulary, amount and type of code-switching, length of sample, organization, overall level of comfort

  • III. Classroom observation


Assessment process7

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation

  • IV. Student Records- CELA, ACCESS, grades, incident reports, etc.

  • V. Gathering of additional information if necessary- parent report, school provider report, additional testing, additional observation


Assessment process8

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores

  • IDEA guidelines: use a variety of measures and tools, and do not rely on any single measure

  • Limitations of standardized tests that are in other languages and/or norm-referenced on individuals who speak a language other than English:

  • - linguistic and cultural biases

  • - standardization samples do not take education levels, acculturation levels, background experiences, bilingual abilities, or dialect differences into account


Assessment process9

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores

  • Students who are not reflected in the normative group for the test’s standardization sample: test scores are invalid

  • Formal tests may be administered informally to gather more information about the student’s language abilities, but the scores are invalid

  • - rewording, providing additional prompts, repeating items, asking student to explain incorrect answers

  • - conceptual scoring


Assessment process10

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores

  • Many scores should not be reported

  • All scores should be interpreted with caution

  • Example statements


Assessment process11

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • Colorado Severity Rating Scales

  • Appendix discusses use with CLD students

  • Can be used as additional data point in body of evidence

    • -should not be overemphasized or used alone

    • Must be used in collaboration with ELD teacher


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • Example statement #1:

  • This evaluator has arrived at the conclusion that XXX difficulties in XXX are not primarily due to a lack of English proficiency or other cultural factors.

  • XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the context of XXX status as an English language learner. Though XXX communicated primarily in XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language skills in XXX. This evaluator has carefully considered these factors (as well as parent and teacher report, therapist observation, standardized assessment results, and a language sample) in determining XXX eligibility for special education services. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Fourth Edition (CELF 4) Spanish Edition was used to evaluate XXX language skills. The CELF 4 Spanish Edition is standardized for Spanish-language administration; however, so as to best account for XXX overall language skills, this evaluation was completed under the principles of conceptual scoring. Therefore, items were presented in both languages, and responses were accepted in both languages. For these reasons, standard scores are not reported. The results are considered to be an accurate reflection of XXX overall communication skills.


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

Example Statement #2

XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the context of XXX status as an English language learner. Though XXX communicated primarily in XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language skills in XXX. This evaluator has carefully considered these factors (as well as parent and teacher report, therapist observation, standardized assessment results, and a language sample) in determining XXX eligibility for special education services. The Preschool Language Scales Fifth Edition (PLS 5) Spanish Edition was used to evaluate XXX's speech and language skills. The test is standardized for administration in both XXX and XXX. For this reason, items were presented in each language and XXX responded in each language. The results are considered to be an accurate reflection of XXX overall communication skills. Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP, XXX.


Assessment process12

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

E) Determination of Eligibility


Assessment process13

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

F) IEP MEETING

I. Previewing information with the interpreter

II. Confirm that observations of language dominance/overall performance is consistent with what is happening at home


Assessment process14

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

G) Guidelines for working with an interpreter when assessing a student in another language: slideshow presentation from Teresa Gillespie at DPS (teresa-gillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.org

I. Meeting before the assessment (briefing)

II. During the assessment

III. After the assessment (debriefing)

IV. Report of evaluation results with the use of an interpreter

V. Helpful suggestions

VI. Resources


Assessment process15

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • Speech Assessment

  • Phonemes develop similarly in each language

  • Varying phonotactics create most speech difficulties

  • Generally speaking, speech sound production impairments/delays will be present in both languages

  • Observation and language sample are effective for evaluating intelligibility


Assessment process16

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

  • Speech Assessment

  • Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish Edition (CPAC-S)

  • -Norm-referenced 3:0-8:11

  • WHEN IN DOUBT, ASSESS!!


Case study 1

CASE STUDY #1

I. Pre-screen and screening

EMAIL #1

Lead SLP,

Kate suggested that I email you about this student - Joe(Freshman) who has an eligibility review on 10/8.

He states that he thinks in both Spanish and English (doesn't have to translate much). Very slow to answer questions in English and answers are very abbreviated. When asked an open ended question, does not supply specific information. The 2010 ER does not have testing data to support his decreased fluency/verbal output in English conversation.

The 2010 ER did give him 160 minutes with the LS and/or SLP with goals in academics - none in speech.


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

EMAIL #1 Ct’d.

Following AR the SLP was removed from services. His grades are probably reflecting a lot of hard work and concerted effort on his part - working at his highest level. He has C's. He reports that French is the hardest. Kate, Jane, and I question his placement in this class. He is labeled as ELL. He doesn't really know what he wants to do after HS but I talked to him about a career in sports where he decided he would like to work for a team taking care of equipment.

Parents: Dad works in carpet and is bilingual. Mom takes care of youngest sibling (age 1) and is trying to learn English. ***We'll need an interpreter for the IEP. He stated that he needs lots of help with spelling in both English and Spanish. Doesn't really have hobbies - plays video games (sports) and sports outside.


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

EMAIL #1 Ct’d.

So my questions are:

What happened with the scars on his head? I did find out that he has a history of a benign neoplasm (brain surgery) - no date. Does he have a history of brain injury as a result of the surgery? Should he be tested "bilingual testing for SL eligibility? I think he is low in both languages but since I don't speak Spanish, not sure.

Is there a waiting list to get bilingual testing at XHS and from my information, should this be explored?

Thanks for your help – SLP #1


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

EMAIL #2

SLP #1,

You can contact Eric Schliemann, our bilingual SLP, to receiveconsultation and potential testing in Spanish for this student!Sounds complex!

Lead SLP

EMAIL #3

Eric,

Wanted to let you know that my time as sub is over Monday the 28th.  SLP #2 will be the FT SLP at XHS.  So please follow up with her on Joe’s referral for Bilingual testing. SLP #1


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • EMAIL #4

  • Hi SLP,

  • I did receive the referral packet for Joe.  Thank you for sending it.  At this point, it looks like the IEP has been completed so I am not sure how the Bilingual Consultation Team can be of assistance to you.  Please let us know! Eric

  • EMAIL #5

  • Hey Eric, 

  • The team had the IEP meeting, but did not give Speech services, because we need more information to determine if there is a need.  The idea is that once the bilingual information/testing is completed, we will then have another meeting with the family and add speech services at that time through an amendment process, should this be needed.  If you have any additional questions, just let me know.

  • Thanks!

  • SLP #2


Ii referral form information a parent interview

II. Referral Form/InformationA) Parent Interview


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

II. Referral Form/ Information

B) Referral Form


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

II. Referral Form/ InformationC. ACCESS/ CELA Scores


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • II. Referral Form/ InformationC. ACCESS/ CELA Scores


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

III. Evaluation

A. CELF 4 Spanish Edition

Results

Receptive Language- 77

Expressive Language- 85


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

III. Evaluation

B. Language Sample

In Spanish: The boy is fishing. The boy trapped a fish. He tried to get it out but he couldn’t. He thought it was a fish but it was a turtle.

In English: The kid tries to get the turtle away from the dog. The turtle tries to chase. The leave to a safe place where they were before…the kid’s mad at the dog ‘cause the turtle dies…the frog is on top of the turtle and the dog’s happy.


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

IV. Additional Evaluation Information

A. CELF Teacher Rating Form


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

TEACHER

#1


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

TEACHER #2


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

IV. Additional Evaluation Information

B. Teacher Report

Teacher #1

Joe has quite a bit of difficulty following multiple step directions. He is unable to follow multiple steps without repeat and clarification. Understanding new ideas is the same. He understands simple concepts, but struggles with higher level thinking. Hope that makes sense. Joe can follow directions after a routine has been established. New directions and directions with multiple steps he struggles with. He appears to be progressing somewhat slower than his peers.

Teacher #2

No concerns but he is in a class with three teachers.  We have a 1 to 6 ratio and that might be the difference.


Iv additional evaluation information c school based slp report

IV. Additional Evaluation InformationC. School-Based SLP Report

  • Limited interactions with student

  • Not particularly outgoing

  • English language skills appear slightly low though within functional limits


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • IV. Additional Evaluation Information

  • D. Bilingual Psych Report

  • Report on Cognitive Testing results:

  • I don’tthink I willgivehim a Spanishlanguageevaluationbecausetheschoolpsychgavehimthe KABC and he didokay.  He was quite lowonworkingmemory and a littlelowonlong-term. Reasoning and visual processingiswithintheaveragerange. He seemslikea kidwiththeprofile of a studentwith a learningdisability.


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • IV. Additional Evaluation Information

  • E. Bilingual SLP Observation

  • Used social language to interact with peers

  • Limited participation in classroom discussion

  • Responded to one teacher question with a complete sentence


Cdl consortium opportunity for ell and special education to intersect as a collective body

  • V. Additional “Standardized” Testing

  • Results

  • Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish Edition- 107 (for highest age range- 12)

  • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition- 93


Case study 2

CASE STUDY #2

Background information:

  • 4th grade student

  • Initial evaluation

  • Lived and went to school in Mexico in kindergarten and first grade, has been in APS since second grade

  • Parents sent him to US to live with his grandma

  • Behavior issues due to separation from his parents

  • Received interventions through RTI for reading and behavior since third grade, math since fourth grade


Case study 21

CASE STUDY #2

Language Proficiency:

  • Spanish is primary language spoken at home, but has an uncle and cousins that speak some English to him

  • Student has been exposed to English for only 2.5 years

  • His grandma reported that he uses more Spanish at home; student reported that he felt he was stronger in English

  • 2nd grade CELA: Speaking-EI, Listening-B

  • 3rd grade ACCESS: Speaking-2.5, Listening-2.9


Case study 22

CASE STUDY #2

Additional information:

  • On the referral form, the referring teacher said that his growth in English was behind his other ELL peers.

  • During a cultural interview with the student’s grandma, she did not indicate any concerns with his communication abilities in Spanish at home.


Case study 23

CASE STUDY #2

Evaluation results

  • Tested in English by school SLP, tested in Spanish by district bilingual SLP

  • CELF-4 Spanish results:

    - Core language score 83 (interpret with caution)

    - Strengths: repeating sentences, word classes, formulating sentences

    - Weaknesses: concepts and following directions, expressive vocabulary, and understanding paragraphs (did better with this in English


Case study 24

CASE STUDY #2

Evaluation results, ct’d.

  • Language sample:

    - simple, complete sentences with correct grammar

    - able to explain how to do something in sequence

    - used past tense to tell a story about pictures

    - needed prompting to give more details and information

    - able to answer inference questions

  • Articulation: substituted j/rr, but completely intelligible in spontaneous speech


Case study 25

CASE STUDY #2

Analysis and Conclusions

  • Spanish dominant

  • Demonstrated basic, foundational language skills in Spanish

  • Weaknesses in expressive vocabulary and following directions with concepts – due to underlying language disorder, or lack of exposure to these words/concepts?

  • Decision at IEP meeting: did not qualify for SLI at this time; language skills should be re-evaluated again in 1-2 years.


Bilingual slp q a

BILINGUAL SLP Q & A

  • Share bilingual resources

  • Question and Answer


Resources

RESOURCES

  • Bilingual SLP Providers Group: (http://groups.google.com/group/co-bilingual-slp-providers)

  • Colorín Colorado (www.colorincolorado.org)

  • 2 Languages 2 Worlds (2languages2worlds.wordpress.com)

  • ASHA position (www.asha.org/practice/multicultual/issues/pp.htm)

  • Bilingual Therapies (www.bilingualtherapies.com)


Resources1

RESOURCES

  • Bilinguistics (www.bilinguistics.com)

  • The Speech Stop (www.thespeechstop.com)

  • Omniglot (online encyclopedia of writing systems and languages: www.omniglot.com)

  • Phonetic inventories (www.asha.org/about/leadership-projects/multicultural/Phono.html)


Resources2

RESOURCES

  • Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Consortium (contact Julie Ignacz at [email protected])

  • Colorado Bilingual Mental Health Network

    - contact Cameran: [email protected]

    - website: http://www.sharedwork.org/web/rti-co-bilingual-school-psychologists/home

  • Speak Colors Spanish Language app for iPads


Resources3

RESOURCES

  • Teresa Gillespie from Denver Public Schools (teresa-gillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.org)

  • Adams 12 Bilingual Consultation Team (https://sites.google.com/a/adams12.org/bct-2/)

  • Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Toolkit provided through CDE (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/cld)

  • Colorado Severity Rating Scale (http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/sli_guidelines_0.pdf)


Questions email us

QUESTIONS? EMAIL US!

Lynette- [email protected]

Eric- [email protected]


  • Login